26 August 2008

KingCast discusses NH government malfeasance vis a vis Martin Luther King and Peckett's ski lodge and "outside agitators."

Hey King you outside agitator!

Same thing was probably said about that black man who tried to stay at Peckett's ski lodge back in the day. When they refused him access the government sent a white man up there as a racial tester and blam! The poopy hit the fan and desegregation was ordered. Rather than follow the order, they shut it down and burned it in a fire exercise. The skiing moved over to Cannon Mountain, which I -- as a black man -- have enjoyed ever since I moved to New England in 2002. Never had a bad time or a racial issue up there, good times all the time. Today I know know many people in Sugar Hill and we're totally chill.

That's called progress. Some folks don't like progress when people from outside show up, but in the end it's usually All Good.

Especially when we're dealing with shady government that needs to be exposed. As my namesake wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail I analysed for my undergraduate Rhetoric final:
"....Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds....."

Related posts:
How to heal a wound.
The Dow Murders and letters to Governor Lynch.
Bette Davis and the Peckett's connection.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

THE REAL CHRISTOPHER KING -

BELIEVE NOTHING HE SAYS BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR AND A DISCREDITED ATTORNEY - WITHOUT THE PROPER ETHICS, HE IS NOTHING - LET IT BE SAID ------


COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 93.]

Attorneys at law --

MISCONDUCT -- One-year suspension

with credit for time
served -- Failing to fulfill purpose of mentorship imposed at previous
disciplinary proceeding and for being a general incompedent bafoon, reflecting all that is wherefore wrong with Ohio law ethics. Basically. he's a piece of shit -- Engaging in conduct indicating inability to
function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom or afford clients
adequate representation -- Failure to pay costs imposed at previous
disciplinary proceeding.
(No. 98-423 -- Submitted January 8, 2002 -- Decided April 24, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-115.
__________________

Per Curiam. In December 1998, for conduct in January 1996, we
suspended Christopher King, now of Dallas, Texas, Attorney Registration No.
0062199, from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but stayed the suspension
on the condition that during that year he be placed on probation and work with a
mentor appointed by the relator, Columbus Bar Association. Columbus Bar Assn.
v. King (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 174, 702 N.E.2d 862. We also imposed costs of
that proceeding on respondent.

On February 19, 1999, relator appointed Guy L. Reese II, a former
Franklin County Municipal Court Judge and a former Franklin County Common
Pleas Court Judge, to be respondent's mentor. Based upon the mentor's report to
the relator and respondent's failure to make the payment ordered in our December
1998 order, relator requested on September 13, 2000, that respondent's probation
be revoked, that his stayed suspension be reinstated, and that respondent be held
in contempt. Respondent opposed this request, and the matter was heard by a

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court.

At a hearing on June 6, 2001, the panel considered testimony, exhibits,
and stipulations. It received evidence that on January 9, 1998, Judge David Cain
of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed a Civ.R. 11 sanction on
respondent in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in thirty days for frivolous
behavior in continuing to pursue an action despite his client's own
acknowledgement that she had no claim. Respondent did not appeal the order or
pay the sanction. Instead, he wrote a letter to the judge and filed suit against him.
The panel received evidence that on September 9, 1998, Judge Edmund A.
Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
fined respondent $1,500 in attorney fees and $1,311.73 in costs for his conduct in
Lampley v. Vagnier (1998), No. C2-96-337. Respondent did not appeal this
sanction or two others in the same case that totaled $5,139, nor did he pay them,
except for possibly $300 of the attorney fees. On February 28, 2000, Judge
Sargus ordered respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held
in contempt for failure to pay the sanctions.

The panel also received evidence that on February 11, 1999, Judge
Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio held respondent in contempt for the manner in which he comported
himself in Belcher v. Ohio Dept. Human Serv., (S.D.Ohio 1999), 48 F.Supp.3d
729, and ordered him to complete a six-week preceptorship with Professor
Shirley Mays of the Capital University Law School. Respondent did not at any
time comply with the requirements of the preceptorship.

The panel received further evidence that on July 7, 1999, Visiting Judge
John Martin of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held respondent in
contempt and granted a mistrial due to respondent's conduct in Smith v.
Professional Cellular Serv., Inc., No. 95CVH-12-8949, and ordered him to pay
2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January Term, 2002
attorney fees and court costs. Respondent instead filed a complaint against Judge
Martin.

In addition, the panel received evidence that respondent informed his
monitor, Judge Reese, that additional sanctions had been imposed against him of
$1,852.50 by Judge David Cain in Oglesby v. Columbus, Franklin C.P. No. 97-
CVC-03-3823, of $2,077.59 by Judge Nodine Miller of the Franklin County
Common Pleas Court in Hamm v. Gahanna City Council, No. 95CVF085484, of
$200 by Judge Cain in Michael v. Whitehall, No. 97CVC012333, and of $1,000
by Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio in Archer v. Roman, No. C-2-95-1187.

On the basis of this evidence the panel found that respondent had not
fulfilled the purpose of his mentorship and that his conduct indicated that he
could neither function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom nor afford his
clients adequate representation.

In addition, the panel further found that respondent had not paid the costs
imposed in our December 1998 order. The panel recommended that respondent's
probation be terminated and that his suspension from the practice of law be
reinstated.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the panel. It is
clear from the numerous sanctions that respondent received during his term of
probation for his conduct in several courts, sanctions that remain unpaid, that the
mentor's report is credible. Further, in three years respondent has not paid the
costs we imposed in December 1998, costs that we ordered paid within ninety
days.

We have already revoked respondent's probation and reinstated his
suspension on October 4, 2001, "pending entry of a final order by this court." 93
Ohio St.3d 1438, 755 N.E.2d 901. Respondent is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for one year with credit for time served. Respondent is further
3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
ordered to pay the costs of the original proceeding in the amount of $1,363.71
plus interest of ten percent from March 8, 1999 until paid. Respondent shall
further pay the costs of these proceedings.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

Anonymous said...

Who do you think you are fooling that you are trying to expose King in the name of justice? The lot of you are far more vengeful and despicable than King will ever be. You think people see what you are doing as a picture of justice??? No, I doubt it. All of you become more black and white daily and perversely draw attention to yourselves with absolutely no interest in the town or citizens of Franconia. Who is using this tragedy to create attention to themselves? Are you not doing the very thing you accuse King of?


Do you see yourselves as saviors? Do you not trust that each person has the ability to judge on their own w/out your "caring" help? At this point it appears that you are attacking the "poor helpless victims" you profess to desire to rescue from the likes of King.

Anonymous said...

Most of us could care less about those citizen in Franconia that allow people like King to espose such crap about the tragedy that happened to one of their finest.

As for "justice", who the hell said anything about justice. Exposing King for being a vindictive angry fraud is what it is about. So long as Kind fancies himself as the next coming, then he will have to understand that as far as the outside world can see, he is so much more inept, incompedent and yes, corrupt than any of the poeple he rails against.

Like the blog says, brother, 1st admedment. Don't get mad because I chose to excercise my right, such as your savior does.

In the end, King in a crook and is using someone else's sorrow to exact his poung of flesh, line his pokcets with Miller's money and get a little attention as a bonus. That's the truth my friend, so go suck on it!!

Christopher King said...

6:29

I like your Freudian slip "Kind" instead of "King" and I have a very nice post coming for you to suck on.

And you keep calling me a "crook" with absolutely no legal basis for so doing. So henceforth, whenever you do so, I will strike your post because that my friend, is Defamation.

Which is not protected by the First Amendment.

But calling you a stupid douchebag is =^.)

If you don't like the law, then change it, instead of throwing rusty daggers at me.

See you at oral argument.

Now suck on THAT.

Christopher King said...

6:29

Nah, you suck on THIS.

Anonymous said...

Christopher King said...
6:29

I like your Freudian slip "Kind" instead of "King" and I have a very nice post coming for you to suck on.

And you keep calling me a "crook" with absolutely no legal basis for so doing. So henceforth, whenever you do so, I will strike your post because that my friend, is Defamation.

OVER $17,000.00 IN UNPAID COURT ASSESSED FINES,PEANLTIES,AND INTEREST SINCE 1998 YOU ARE INDEED A CROOK IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD

Anonymous said...

Hey King Nutso, you;ve been indicted and disbarred, how is it defemation when you are called a crook? Additionally, look at the stuff you call the AG - who by the way, has had an outstanding, unblemished career?

Now, Chrissy, don't soil your shorts everytime someone rightly calls you what they think you are. If you dish it Chrissy, then take it. I'm certain, given what you say of other people, you have no legal leg to stand on for a defemation suit.

Toughen' up!!

Anonymous said...

I find it funny if it was somebody else it would be a typo, somebody else maybe a spelling error but when it helps to promote you it is a freudian slip. Kind and king are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Anonymous said...

I will strike your post because that my friend, is Defamation.

If you do that you should strike your entire blog, because it is based on deflamation and libel.

Anonymous said...

Everytime Nutso strikes a post, he is acknowledging that he either can not handle the argument or statement, it rings blatanly true or it is getting under his skin. No matter the reason, each time King Nutso (not to be confused with Kind Nutso) deletes a comment, a victory is had!

Christopher King said...

Libel and profanity huh.

Cite the passages.

Sue me.

See you in summer/fall 2009 when Casey Sherman's book and the Franconia Collective U.S. House Complaint and Petition to the NH Supreme Court for Original Jurisdiction issue.

-The KingCaster.